Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Nor would the Taliban be using it for humanitarian reasons, assuredly.

Let's go into this some more.

The Taliban are not broke. In fact, we've got a pretty good idea where their operating budget comes from.

1) Large donations from people who side with them ideologically. $500 million a year.
2) A 10% cut of the opium trade. Another $150 million a year, minimum.
3) Extortion. Anyone bringing goods through Taliban-controlled areas since 2018 had to pay a tax to the Taliban. Now, they have the whole country.
4) The mining industry. Much of it illegal, Afghanistan has a billion a year mining industry. In 2014, the Taliban took about $50 million of that. Now, they have the whole country.

Now, if the country is in poor economic shape, because a bunch of heavily-armed terrorists demanded they run the country despite not having the money or skills to do so, we're free to ask "why are they allowed to run the country?" and that goes to Trump, of course. Biden's just the one who didn't give them any extra money, which the Taliban surely knew they weren't getting. Or, you could make the argument the Taliban do have enough money to help their country, they're just choosing not to do it, in which case, once again, it's not Biden being the bad guy here.

People might not like the situation we've found ourselves in. I know I don't. But Biden's options were
1) Hand the Taliban terrorists billions of dollars, breaking the law to do so.
2) Sit on the money, having it do nothing.
3) Try to do some good with it, even if, yes, contractors will take some and the Taliban will likely steal some too.

I'm not going to fault Biden for taking the best way out of a bad situation he was handed by a mentally-deranged dictator, and the Taliban.

[Shadowferal]

How American money helped break Afghanistan

[Draco-Onis]

then said "bin Laden murdered thousands of Americans, but you can't have him".

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that lie, it's not what happened. I already linked you the article you can look up the chain of events. We bombed their country, made demands then refused to even talk to them, the Taliban publicly telling us to fuck off was the least they could do. Bin Laden was just a good excuse to invade Afghanistan.

Maybe you can grow up and evolve beyond movies lines like MURICA DON'T TALK TO TERRORIST because that's not how it works in real life.

[Breccia]

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that lie

First of all, largely irrelevant. This is a Biden thread.

But, second of all, this is false. You quoted an article from Oct 14. By Sept 21, W had already publicly demanded the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden or be declared co-conspirators. Sept 22, the Taliban said they had bin Laden, and weren't going to hand him over. Oct 7, air strikes began. Your article shows the Taliban, who had admitted to harboring the architect of the 9/11 attacks in public, and under direct attack by a highly movitated US military, were still trying to dictate terms.

This wasn't a random pickpocket or jaywalker. This wasn't even a random thief or murderer. This was the man who stopped the world by killing thousands of civilians -- an act of war. And the Taliban, after seeing this, announced "we want to be part of this". There is no slippery slope argument to be made, no parallel to be drawn, this was its own one-of-a-kind situation in which a terrorist declared war on the US, and the Taliban agreed to protect him.

There is only one response to that.

You don't get to say "well, we'll think about it" You don't get to say "If you do this in return...." You don't get to say "We're waiting to see if..." You get to either say "Yes, here is the mass murdering terrorist you asked for, don't shoot" or "We've agreed to take part in this act of war and invite you to invade us and break every square inch of our grip on power".

The Taliban were known terrorists before the attack, by siding with bin Laden they reaffirmed that decision after 9/11, they made terrorist attacks against their own people for 20 years, and they're terrorists now. And they intentionally called us out on our worst day. I do not care which other terrorists you think or claim the US worked with before or since. No exception was to be made here. And if you compare the international support the US got when invading Afghanistan vs, for example, Iraq, you'll see how the world agreed with this. France and Germany helped us in Afghanistan, while even the UAE cut ties with the Taliban. Everyone -- everyone -- knew the Taliban had fucked up beyond any excuse or wiggle room, and watched as they were torn down in two months, almost to the day.

As mentioned before, almost all of that is irrelevant here. Biden wasn't President or VP then. He wasn't President when Trump decided the Taliban deserved the country back, either. (By the way, I assume you have no plans of backing "the US does negotiate with terrorists" with "Trump negotiated with the Taliban" because that'd seem out of character) Biden was handed three choices:

1) Give terrorists money that was given to the Afghan government. As I cited before, no he couldn't do that, that's illegal. The Taliban are an internationally-recognized terror group, unlike the Saudis. You don't have to like that last part, but it's a legal distinction that means something in context.
2) Sit on the money, having it do nothing.
3) Give the money, well a lot of it at least, to the victims of the Taliban.

Biden couldn't hand the Taliban their money without breaking the law. And some moral and ethical issues, too. Really, the issue here is you seem to think that, because the US has negotiated with other groups (you mentioned the Saudis, you're free to not like the Saudis, but the legal issue is they haven't been caught yet) we should have negotiated with the Taliban, too.

No.

Even in a world where shades of grey are called for, you don't make an exception for them. Within days of 9/11, they rushed to defend bin Laden, and they did it knowing full well what the stakes were. These aren't the people you let slide, just this once. They are walking Strawmen, the examples so bad you point to them sarcastically when looking for an example of evil on this Earth.

If you're upset that the Taliban don't have the money to support the country they insisted on taking over, then your outrage should maybe be directed at them for taking over a country they couldn't afford. That money was never for them. They never had it in their hands. And they had to know they weren't getting it back.

Hey why didn't Trump give them the money? He seemed on board with the negotiatiating with Taliban terrorists. Why didn't he bring a big dufflebag stuffed with money and say "here you go"? Oh sure, the optics would have been...actually he didn't seem to care about the optics, did he? But even if he did, he could have done it behind closed doors. Was it that it was too despicable an act, even for Trump, to hand the Taliban billions of dollars? Or was it so illegal even Trump couldn't do it? I guess you could say "he's an idiot and forgot". But bear in mind, this is something Trump, if he wanted to help the Taliban, could have at least tried. I don't see any evidence he even tried. To me, even though Trump is an incompetent senile fat idiot, this pushed the dial from "the US could do this" to "the US could not do this".

You feel bad about the Afghani people? So do I. They've had a generation or two of being shat upon, mostly by the Taliban. I mean, no surprise there, they are terrorists. But I'm not ready to blame Biden for this act, when
1) the Taliban are clearly capable of making money on their own
1a) if they're not making enough money, that's not Biden's fault
2) Biden never agreed to any of this in the first place
3) giving the Taliban this money was such a bad idea not even Trump could do it
4) America negotiating with other people you call terrorists isn't an excuse to negotiate with these guys
5) seriously, these are the people who defended Osama bin Laden on purpose, fuck these guys

If you want to donate to charitable organizations to help the Afghan people or refugees, I won't stop you. Pretty sure I've done so myself. But I cannot think of a single moral, ethical, or legal reason why Biden should take a large sack of cash to the Taliban, hand it to them willingly, and say "I trust that with your known public history pre-2001 of not helping the people of Afghanistan with your money, and your history in the 20 years since of murdering them in the streets, you will help the civilians of Afghanistan with this large sack of cash". As far as Biden and therefore this thread is concerned, of the options he had, he took the best one available. He had every right to just sit on the money so that nobody gets it, hoping that Afghanistan somehow gets a better government. He'd been doing that since August, nobody would have noticed if he kept doing it. At least this way, some (hopefully most) of it will do some good for the victims of the murdering Taliban terrorists.

If you really want to demonstrate your dedication in context, I'll ask you to go through your own post history when, in August, Biden froze the money in the first place. Surely you spoke out against it then. If you didn't, then either it wasn't that important to you in the first place, or your problem isn't Biden holding the money but using it to help the Taliban's victims. Until then, I will not accept "the US worked with these other groups at these other times not relevant to this thread" as an excuse for Biden to give the Taliban a large sack of cash and hoping they'll do the right thing with it.

[Draco-Onis]

By the way, I assume you have no plans of backing "the US does negotiate with terrorists" with "Trump negotiated with the Taliban" because that'd seem out of character

Do I need to start listing the number of terrorists organizations that the US has funded trained and used for "regime change"? I guess you are calling all these people "freedom fighters". I am not sure why you keep hanging on to dear life to this fictional version of the United State government straight from movies but it's laughable. You should ask the people of Western Africa going through several coups in the name of stopping China expansion or South America or Iran or Libya or Haiti or Cuba, I mean the list is so dam long. US doesn't work with terrorists ROFLMAO talk about living in a fantasy land.

First of all, largely irrelevant. This is a Biden thread.

Well then to the topic at hand I have no issues with Biden freezing the money what I have issue with is the grandstanding on 9/11. We bear a great deal of responsibility for Afghanistan and we have to take into account no matter what we do some of the money will end in the hands of the Taliban. While NGOs might be the best way we can also try to negotiate terms for the way the money is given out. If we don't want to give them all the money that's fine but this whole bullshit is what I cannot stand.

[Breccia]

Do I need to start lis--

None of them excuse the Taliban. The USA has a long familiarity with hypocrisy, but keeping the money from the Taliban remains the right move. And no, I'm not excusing the rest of the US's history with terrorists. I don't need to, they're terrorists, they don't deserve excusing.

Good to see we have common ground, at least.

[jonnysensible]

but keeping the money from the Taliban remains the right move.

no it isn't. that money belongs to the Afghan people (not the taliban). Afghanistan is starving because this money is their formal banking system. Why punish the Afghan people so harshly?

Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

[Shadowferal]

no it isn't. that money belongs to the Afghan people (not the taliban). Afghanistan is starving because this money is their formal banking system. Why punish the Afghan people so harshly? Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

The devil is in the details, details you aren't grasping. And it's the same for a lot of places where starvation is widely extant. Supplies and foodstuffs delivered to such countries never reach the people that need it the most because the local regimes, warlords...heck ganglords, horde it for obvious reasons. That's why I posted the link earlier. To ensure supplies go to everyone that needs them and more importantly develop the local powerstructure so that there are people in charge that give a shit, would demand a commitment that no one is interested in.

[Endus]

The devil is in the details, details you aren't grasping. And it's the same for a lot of places where starvation is widely extant. Supplies and foodstuffs delivered to such countries never reach the people that need it the most because the local regimes, warlords...heck ganglords, horde it for obvious reasons. That's why I posted the link earlier. To ensure supplies go to everyone that needs them and more importantly develop the local powerstructure so that there are people in charge that give a shit, would demand a commitment that no one is interested in.

The simplest part; who are you delivering to?

If you're not running the country, you're not going door-to-door. And that means you're stuck handing it over to either A> the government (the Taliban, here), B> some charitable organization that has constant government oversight and no capacity to resist government seizures, or B> organized crime groups, which I shouldn't have to explain may not be fair about distribution.

[D3thray]

None of them excuse the Taliban. The USA has a long familiarity with hypocrisy, but keeping the money from the Taliban remains the right move. And no, I'm not excusing the rest of the US's history with terrorists. I don't need to, they're terrorists, they don't deserve excusing.

Good to see we have common ground, at least.

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to. We don’t get that say as already established. If there is a way to be found which can better distribute aid then sure we take that, but cutting off the tap is morally indefensible given recent history.

[Breccia]

Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

Something the Taliban should have thought of before they took over and Trump before he put the Taliban in charge. Put the blame where it belongs.

Biden cannot give money to the Taliban. It's immoral, and illegal, to give money to terrorists. Biden is also organizing efforts to help the Afghan people directly. And yes, there's every reason to believe that's not going to go smoothly. But simply handing the Taliban a big sack of cash and saying "this was supposed to go to the government you replaced, ran off, and murdered, but here, do whatever you want" is something I'd be willing to bet would go less smoothly...and I bet you agree.

He could have directly funded terrorism in broad daylight. (Well no he couldn't but bear with me)

He could have sat on the money indefinitely.

He could have broken the US's deal and kept the occupation going -- something I'm sure we agree the Taliban would not have taken graciously.

Or, he coudl have done this.

Biden was left with only bad options. He's choosing the least bad.

We can discuss "are the Afghan people better off or worse off than they were Sept 10, 2001?" now that the Taliban were officially given status by Trump on the world stage all we want. We can theorize about the upcoming distribution of supplies. This thread is not the place to discuss what we should have done in the 1980's or 2001+ because Biden had little to nothing to do with either, but you can make another thread for that. But barring the virus from a Bond movie that kills every single Taliban covertly or a G.E.C.K. this is exactly what we all saw coming: Trump making a giant mess, dumping it on Biden's doorstep, then watching him get blamed for it. I will continue to give Biden respect for picking the best out of a list of the only choices he had left, rather than say "Biden should have invented time travel" to revert what happened in the last 20 years.

Be upset with the right people: the Taliban for being murdering terrorists, and Trump for handing them millions of defenseless civilians they could oppress. I don't see how Biden giving the Taliban cash would help. If you say "it belongs to the Afghan people" you'll see Biden agrees and is trying to help them directly.

- - - Updated - - -

B> some charitable organization that has constant government oversight and no capacity to resist government seizures

The Taliban claim they want to join the UN, or at least be recognized for it. Maybe that can be used here. If the UN handles distribution and the Taliban allow that, there's a chance this might not be a dismal failure. If the Taliban attack the UN, we're back to your three choices and add "D> give up, it's hopeless" gets added.

[beanman12345]

CMon Kamala and show some courage unlike the last vp, throw it back to the referee's and let them over rule the decision of the game and ta da the Bengals are super bowl champions. That's how this all works now right? Rigged players.

[Dontrike]

CMon Kamala and show some courage unlike the last vp, throw it back to the referee's and let them over rule the decision of the game and ta da the Bengals are super bowl champions. That's how this all works now right? Rigged players.

What is this?

[beanman12345]

What is this?

Bengal fans who are sore losers? It's a joke.

[Milchshake]

Bengal fans who are sore losers? It's a joke.

The Bengals can still be Super Bowl Champs, only if Mike Pence has the courage.

[Kaleredar]

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to. We don’t get that say as already established. If there is a way to be found which can better distribute aid then sure we take that, but cutting off the tap is morally indefensible given recent history.

So you're saying we should give the money blindly to a known terrorist group? Money we don't have to give to them? But that you're saying we should give to them, because they might maybe help people with it?

I mean, if we're drawing conclusions here, on that same notion isn't it also a bad idea to restrict giving out social services to education or welfare just because you're afraid that the money might be "used incorrectly?" The constant reason that conservatives refuse to fund or prop up social services for the poor and underserviced?

The main difference in this comparison, of course, being that statistics have shown that welfare fraud is vanishingly small... and the taliban are terrorists.

[Orange Joe]

no it isn't. that money belongs to the Afghan people (not the taliban). Afghanistan is starving because this money is their formal banking system. Why punish the Afghan people so harshly?

Sending 90% of the country into acute famine is not the right choice.

Just curious. Do you think if the US gave the money back to the people that taliban would just be like "Well GG you won, we won't just go take it back from the people"

[Breccia]

Semantics aside the official response from the administration is recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan whether explicitly stated or not. We don’t get a whole lot of say in the matter, we left. What you’re suggesting smacks of withholding welfare because you’re afraid the recipient won’t use it the way you want them to.

That is correct. That's why we give out food stamps and Medicare, but don't go door to door with a large sack of cash.

The Taliban are terrorists. We're not giving them the money. Yes, you can both be terrorists, and the government, just like you can both be in the White House and also a criminal. Criminals should be prosecuted, and terrorists should not be aided.

No, cutting off the tap is not morally indefensible. Giving money to terrorists is indefensible, including "but they might help their people". We know they don't. They kill their people. And I assume "recent history" means "things Trump did" and boy oh boy, that's not a defense of literally anything.

[Nurasu]

So you're saying we should give the money blindly to a known terrorist group? Money we don't have to give to them? But that you're saying we should give to them, because they might maybe help people with it?

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

[Kaleredar]

I think the main counterpoint to this is that they don't actually need to use any of it to help their citizens for it to begin to re-stabilize their banking system and help their citizens anyway.

…or they do what terrorists do and use it to…I dunno, kill people?

If the taliban wants to pretend they’re suddenly cool guys that can run a happy country where everything is smiles and sunshine maybe they should have thought about how they were going to do this kind of thing beforehand.